Karnataka High Court
Sri. C. Sekar vs Divisional Manager ,National Ins Co Ltd on 4 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13797
MFA No. 9258 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9258 OF 2013(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. C.SEKAR
S/O CHINNATHAMBI,
AGED 36 YEARS,
R/O NATIVE PLACE VILANKATTUR,
DEVAKOTTAI TALUK,
SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU.
ALSO AT
NO.52, 7TH MAIN ROAD,
ABBIGERE MAIN ROAD,
KAMMAGONDANAHALLI,
BANGALORE-13.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VISWANATH SABARAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N 1. DIVISIONAL MANAGER ,
Location: HIGH NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
COURT OF NO.64, LALBAGH ROAD,
KARNATAKA
(MISSION ROAD),
BANGALORE-27.
2. SRI. P.R.MUTHIAH
S/O N.PERIAH SERAI,
NO.1/55, CHINNA NAGADI,
DEVAKOTTAI TALUK,
SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.
TAMIL NADU-600 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L.SREEKANTA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13797
MFA No. 9258 of 2013
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.09.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.6730/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER,
MACT, BANGALORE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Viswanath Sabarad., learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri.L.Sreekanta Rao., learned counsel for respondent No.1
have appeared in person.
2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on
21.11.2013. A perusal of the office note depicts that
respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. He has neither
engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as
a party in person.
3. Though the appeal is listed today for dismissal, it is
heard finally.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:13797
5. It is the case of the claimant that on the twenty-
fourth day of June 2011, at about 8:30 p.m., on Sarukani Road
in Muppayur Prohibition/ Obstruction Road, near Devakottai, he
was riding his motor cycle bearing Reg. No.TN-63-R-7804
slowly and carefully. At that time, a Ambassador car bearing
Reg. No.TN-63-T-7778 owned by the second respondent,
insured with the first respondent, came in a rash and negligent
manner and hit him. Due to the impact, he fell and sustained
injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital,
Devakottai, wherein he took after first aid and thereafter, he
was shifted to Senthil Hospital and thereafter, he was shifted to
Apollo Hospital, K.K. Nagar, Madurai. Contending that he is
entitled for compensation, the claimant filed a claim petition.
In response to the notice, the respondents appeared
through their counsel and filed the statement of objections
denying the petition averments. Among other grounds, they
prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:11.09.2013 dismissed the Claim
NC: 2024:KHC:13797
Petition. The claimant has assailed the Judgment of the
Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the
Memorandum of appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the respective parties have
urged several contentions.
Counsel Sri.Viswanath Sabarad., in presenting his
arguments drew the attention of the Court to Ex.P.13 and 23 to
contend that the doctors have misinterpreted the statement
made by the claimant. Counsel therefore, submits that the
appeal may be allowed.
Counsel Sri.L.Sreekanta Rao., submits that the claimant
himself hit the Ambassador Car and the same is evident from
Ex.P.13 and 23. Counsel therefore, submit that the appeal is
devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective
parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records
with utmost care.
7. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Tribunal is justified in dismissing the Claim Petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:13797
8. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. The accident occurred on twenty-fourth day of June
2011. The accident occurred in Tamil Nadu and the complaint
was given by his wife on the very next day.
Ex.P13 is the accident register dated:24.06.2011. In
Police memo details column it is noted as under:
"Alleged to have sustained RTA while traveling
in a two wheeler hit against car near Sarugani at
about 8:00 p.m., on 24.06.2011".
Ex.P23 is case sheet of the claimant from Apollo
Hospitals. It is dated:25.06.2011. In page No.14 at History
column, it is noted as under:
"An alleged history of RTA while riding two -
wheeler clashed against an Ambassador car near
Sarukani (Devakottai) about 8:20 p.m., on
24.06.2011."
Ex.P16 is the discharge summary issued by Apollo
Hospitals, Madurai. A perusal of the same depicts that the
claimant was admitted to the hospital on 25.06.2011 and was
NC: 2024:KHC:13797
discharged on 02.07.2011. Dr.M.Muthuvel Rajan - Orthopedic
Surgeon has signed the discharge summary. In clinical history
column, it is noted as under:
"An alleged history of RTA while riding two
wheeler clashed against an ambassador car near
devakottai about 8:20 p.m., on 24.06.2011, no
history of loss of consciousness, no history of
vomiting".
An attempt is made on behalf of the claimant to contend
that he went to the hospital with a history Road Traffic Accident
hit by Ambassador Car. However, the Doctor misinterpreted his
statement and has wrongly written as claimant himself hit
against the Ambassador Car. The contention cannot be
accepted. The reason is simple. A perusal of the records i.e.,
the accident register, the history sheet and the discharge
summary depicts that the claimant was conscious and went to
the hospital with a history of hitting against the Car. It is
pivotal to note that the brother of the claimant also
accompanied him when he went to the hospital. Hence, it is
hard to believe that the Ambassador Car hit him. The Tribunal
NC: 2024:KHC:13797
extenso referred to the material on record and rightly dismissed
the claim petition. In my view, the conclusion so arrived at by
the Tribunal is just and proper. I find no reasons to interfere
with the judgment of the Tribunal.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is devoid of
merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
9. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRP
